nemo295

I'll be the lone voice that isn't echoing praise for this picture. There's no denying that the subject matter is very dramatic. At first glance it's an impressive photograph. But the more I look at it the more I begin to notice things that detract from my first impression. The sky doesn't quite work or me. The subtle coloration in the sky, while the rest of the photograph is monochrome, doesn't make visual sense and gives the photograph an oddly manipulated feel. The lighting of the scene is too much for the dynamic range of the camera to handle, forcing a choice between exposing for highlights or for shadows. By favoring the highlights, we're left with large areas of blocked shadows. I would have opened up the lens a stop and tried recovering the highlights while processing the raw file in Photoshop.

I'll be the lone voice that isn't echoing praise for this picture. There's no denying that the subject matter is very dramatic. At first glance it's an impressive photograph. But the more I look at it the more I begin to notice things that detract from my first impression. The sky doesn't quite work or me. The subtle coloration in the sky, while the rest of the photograph is monochrome, doesn't make visual sense and gives the photograph an oddly manipulated feel. The lighting of the scene is too much for the dynamic range of the camera to handle, forcing a choice between exposing for highlights or for shadows. By favoring the highlights, we're left with large areas of blocked shadows. I would have opened up the lens a stop and tried recovering the highlights while processing the raw file in Photoshop.

Doug, The whole point of the picture is the overwhelming brightness from the distant, low sun interrupted by indecipherable verticals. Bringing up the highlights that face us would shift attention away from the brightness of that sun. It would be a very different and, in my estimation, much less interesting picture.

nemo295

Doug, The whole point of the picture is the overwhelming brightness from the distant, low sun interrupted by indecipherable verticals. Bringing up the highlights that face us would shift attention away from the brightness of that sun. It would be a very different and, in my estimation, much less interesting picture.

nemo295

You are advising me that if I had let twice as much direct sunlight into the camera, that the image would look better?

Dave

That was a suggestion about what to do about 50% of my criticism of the photograph. However, your Canon probably doesn't have enough dynamic range to handle the lighting in any case. There may have been no real solution, short of HDR, which would have sucked. But I would have tried bracketing to see if an alternate exposure would have been closer to the mark.

The other 50% of my critique would have been addressed by leaving the sky monochrome, but what you did there was an aesthetic choice, not a technical flaw. It's just a matter of taste.

That was a suggestion about what to do about 50% of my criticism of the photograph. However, your Canon probably doesn't have enough dynamic range to handle the lighting in any case. There may have been no real solution, short of HDR, which would have sucked. But I would have tried bracketing to see if an alternate exposure would have been closer to the mark.

The other 50% of my critique would have been addressed by leaving the sky monochrome, but what you did there was an aesthetic choice, not a technical flaw. It's just a matter of taste.

No problem Doug and thanks for your input, I think it is always good for us to discuss our work and the thoughts that other photographers have about it, and I look forward to discussing your work when you post something here.

I remember how difficult it can be posting to a forum for the first time and asking for others to critique my work with no holds barred, as we can all become very protective of what we do, but in the end I always find it rewarding and informative, even if I also sometimes find it difficult to accept initially (I think Walter will attest to that). Because I invariably look back at some point and think I have learnt something, whether it be about how to improve my style/technique or simply to gauge what other photographers think about my work and whether I am still heading in the right direction etc.

... Um, there IS a hint of reddish in the sky, right? I'm not just having a stroke?

I often notice similar faint color cast in my b&w conversions (which I do mostly in LR).

Could it be because we are still in the RGB mode, which then only attempts to stimulate a grayscale? You know, like when printing, we have also two options (at least with lesser printers): print using grayscale or using RGB.

I often notice similar faint color cast in my b&w conversions (which I do mostly in LR).

Could it be because we are still in the RGB mode, which then only attempts to stimulate a grayscale? You know, like when printing, we have also two options (at least with lesser printers): print using grayscale or using RGB.

Dunno, I'm not seeing this on my screen, but as several people obviously are, then I suppose it could be a whole host of factors, different calibration of monitors, the way LuLa uploads the file through different browsers, our different concepts and ability to see colour, the different lighting conditions we are viewing the screen under, even the different O/S's and screens we are using, as everything renders colour (including our eyes) slightly differently it seems.

All I did was add a slight but even sepia tint to the whole image in one hit - so could it perhaps be how the tone has mixed with the various light/white areas of the scene, you know washing out the colour in the lighter areas and intensifying it in the darker areas?

It would be a simple thing to desaturate the image and post a second version, which I will do later today.